|
docbeard posted:To be honest, I'm more worried about the next President of the United States effectively telling the CIA to go gently caress themselves than I am about whether some rando on Twitter thinks this should overturn the election. all of this will cease to matter on Jan 21st when he purges the agency and hires loyalists e: purgEd Balls
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:did the CIA fall for it too Never assume that the CIA is competent at anything. (Except at installing brutal dictators and poisoning everyone's relationship with the US.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Never assume that the CIA is competent at anything. (Except at installing brutal dictators and poisoning everyone's relationship with the US.) So you think they'll go with Hillary, or do you think they have someone else in mind?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:So you think they'll go with Hillary, or do you think they have someone else in mind?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
I can't wait for the Ted Cruz coup to fail
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:deep statist theorycrafters say the establishment is mumbling kasich, the only GOP official to "reach across the aisle" (even though he'll fall in line with most of them and bring back gas chambers) I love that even in a hypothetical CIA-sponsored coup, no one, including the agency his dad used to run, wants Jeb! to be president.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
They should put that Richard Spencer guy in charge. I've heard of him lately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:Ted Cruz coup Man, that would be the ultimate gently caress YOU that 2016 could deliver at the end, to all of us who've been saying after Trump's election, "At least he's not Ted Cruz". So now I assume this is what's going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
I would be proud to have a president that does Simpsons impressions during the State of the Union.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Fulcrum should be happy too, then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:Fulcrum should be happy too, then. Big Brother has won
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:did the CIA fall for it too https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/808327634224578560
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
it loving owns how any gun chat at all is supposedly banned but the rule only becomes enforced when people have an opinion that isn't "ban all guns" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Dems gonna lose another seat: http://www.inforum.com/news/4177637-news-report-heitkamp-trumps-top-choice-agriculture-secretary
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
"The gun ish good, the penish ish evil." -- Shawn Connolly
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Segmentation Fault posted:it loving owns how any gun chat at all is supposedly banned but the rule only becomes enforced when people have an opinion that isn't "ban all guns" Actually it was specifically said gun *policy* chat was allowed, it was chat *about guns* that was banned. I can get behind that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Ban-marie all guns to make delicious molten guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
just disallowing  conversation whether an elephant gun bullet is the minimum required caliber to shoot down a man is fine with me
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Gene Hackman Fan posted:"The gun ish good, the penish ish evil." And they say pro-gun policies can't fit in a liberal worldview.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:25
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Actually it was specifically said gun *policy* chat was allowed, it was chat *about guns* that was banned. I can get behind that. What's wrong with guns?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
i'm wondering this too considering we shoot down the pearl clutchers who would make a big stink about gun control and make them slither back into D&D when they appear pretty regularly
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Segmentation Fault posted:What's wrong with guns? There's a whole forum for talking about guns, this forum is for talking about elections and shitposting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
wow, sounds like this thread has gun control control
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
This is how it starts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
rudatron posted:wow, sounds like this thread has gun control control
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Segmentation Fault posted:it loving owns how any gun chat at all is supposedly banned but the rule only becomes enforced when people have an opinion that isn't "ban all guns" i dont get this attitude at all man, chat about guns ignore the mods no gods no mods do what you want grab life by the pussy and if you get probated well good be proud!! fight for whats rite dont just whine! post about guns with your whole being dont let anyone tell you otherwise! Come on, you sons of bitches, do you want to post forever? do what you want to do, post what you want to post, be who you want to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Actually it was specifically said gun *policy* chat was allowed, it was chat *about guns* that was banned. I can get behind that. Gun people get made fun of for being upset about people not knowing the difference between a clip and a magazine, but maybe it is reasonable to ask people to know literally anything about guns before they try to come up with gun regulations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Gun people get made fun of for being upset about people not knowing the difference between a clip and a magazine, but maybe it is reasonable to ask people to know literally anything about guns before they try to come up with gun regulations. Gun control is not my biggest issue but this is a dumb argument I also don't know how to commit massive financial fraud but I'm pretty sure it should be illegal
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I also don't know how to commit massive financial fraud but I'm pretty sure it should be illegal
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
That's why we only elect legislators who went to law school & or worked in finance. Because they know how to make money, folks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:That's why we only elect legislators who went to law school & or worked in finance. Because they know how to make money, folks. the only way out is violence Anime Schoolgirl has issued a correction as of 16:47 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I also don't know how to commit massive financial fraud but I'm pretty sure it should be illegal Yes, but if you understood the mechanisms of massive financial fraud, you would realize that it is in fact cool and good and we should really get tax cuts for committing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
docbeard posted:Yes, but if you understood the mechanisms of massive financial fraud, you would realize that it is in fact cool and good and we should really get tax cuts for committing it. it helps that sociopathy wasn't ingrained as a virtue there it's not exactly constructive to discredit an entire cottage trade when there's a much more important (but unfortunately less visible) morality aspect Anime Schoolgirl has issued a correction as of 16:48 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
yeah if we stuck by that standard we wouldn't let people outlaw gay marriage unless they had gay sex or outlaw pot unless they're a stoner or...uh... okay can we make this actually happen
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:She lost her money in the same exact way Trump did though, it is disingenious but also appropriate beause the original claim was disingenious in the same exact way, implying that any amount of money invested in a risky pursuit is lost if that pursuit doesnt pay off and thus a mistake to have spent If you raise a billion and spend a billion, that's a lot different from spending a billion more than you have, no? He reported a loss of a billion dollars mean negative profit. The Clinton campaign actually raised that much, then spent it. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/ The list of things the campaign did wrong is endless but it's a poo poo headline, especially since the article it's taken from doesn't match.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
When people who don't know anything about guns try to regulate guns, we get incredibly stupid poo poo like the Assault Weapons Ban.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:When people who don't know anything about guns try to regulate guns, we get incredibly stupid poo poo like the Assault Weapons Ban. YOU'RE JUST AN INSANE CONSPIRACY THEORIST WHO BELIEVES IN MARTIANS
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:the best part is when they bury potential elected officials who are studied in economics who are socialists at the same time while doing this because they could actually dismantle the system They don't really have to do that because economics programs don't study Marx or socialism at all. Almost every socialist economist is an autodidact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:They don't really have to do that because economics programs don't study Marx or socialism at all. Almost every socialist economist is an autodidact.  and people are surprised when "young earth" creationism and eugenics gains traction
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:When people who don't know anything about guns try to regulate guns, we get incredibly stupid poo poo like the Assault Weapons Ban. I bet, if you follow the money, there is a very good reason why certain guns were left off while others were left on. I think elected officials don't know what they're talking about but they have a whole team of people to do that research for them and, as a whole, they knew exactly what they were doing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:50
|
|